Why Caltech is now requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

No, the faculty petition addresses that. They say the top students are still well prepared despite the pandemic; the increasing number of failing students is due to lack of skill as indicated by SAT Math score.

No, you don’t understand. Cal Tech is still very competitive. You aren’t getting in without As in AP Physics,, CALC BC, high AP scores, math and science competition winners. This is the floor not the ceiling! You can have all those things and still not get in. There is no way that any of those students wouldn’t score 700 on the SAT math section. Heck my humanities kid, has a 700 on math.

It's entirely possible with sufficient grade inflation, especially from a poorly performing school (FCPS high schools are not poorly performing).

I'm not sure how going test optional opened doors for some of the top kids at Ivy schools - can you expand on that?

How many Caltech students do you think go to poorly performing high schools? And what poorly performing high school offers all the AP sciences and Calculus BC?

DP. None. Or next to. It's feeders are TAMS, Harker, Harvard Westlake, and IMSA. It takes from all the top STEM high schools, which are majority privileged students. No random kid with a good score in AP Physics and AP Calc is going to get in without proving themselves above these students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

In which field did you find UChicago teachers to be miserable egos? And don't you think it would be more egotistical for Caltech to claim they "create" scientists, as if they get all the credit for their students' accomplishments? I think recognizing the selection effect is far more humble.

I think it's more just feigning/performative than anything. Caltech creates scientists-they teach them scientific literacy, introduce them to the field, and track students towards research careers. Nothing arrogant about it. Wharton also creates business professionals-those kids entering aren't Investment Bankers by their high school extracurricular lists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

I think it's obvious that the students failing those EE classes are not math olympiad winners.

Safe to say if you've never done competition math and can't tell the difference between that and Electrical engineering at a research institute...sure.

Caltech's EE classes are heavily mathematical, and olympiad-level math skills absolutely carry over.

E.g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc7Gz02Znph_HU1I9STgC4Nv0aG_jdb8Z

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

In which field did you find UChicago teachers to be miserable egos? And don't you think it would be more egotistical for Caltech to claim they "create" scientists, as if they get all the credit for their students' accomplishments? I think recognizing the selection effect is far more humble.

I think it's more just feigning/performative than anything. Caltech creates scientists-they teach them scientific literacy, introduce them to the field, and track students towards research careers. Nothing arrogant about it. Wharton also creates business professionals-those kids entering aren't Investment Bankers by their high school extracurricular lists.

If it was true that all the TO admits could be taught to be scientists as easily as those admitted TR, the performance between the groups would not be so different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

In which field did you find UChicago teachers to be miserable egos? And don't you think it would be more egotistical for Caltech to claim they "create" scientists, as if they get all the credit for their students' accomplishments? I think recognizing the selection effect is far more humble.

I think it's more just feigning/performative than anything. Caltech creates scientists-they teach them scientific literacy, introduce them to the field, and track students towards research careers. Nothing arrogant about it. Wharton also creates business professionals-those kids entering aren't Investment Bankers by their high school extracurricular lists.

If it was true that all the TO admits could be taught to be scientists as easily as those admitted TR, the performance between the groups would not be so different.

I can make a course to teach everyone how to climb Mount Everest. Doesn't mean everyone will be successful, but I did teach them how to climb the dang mountain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

I think it's obvious that the students failing those EE classes are not math olympiad winners.

Safe to say if you've never done competition math and can't tell the difference between that and Electrical engineering at a research institute...sure.

Caltech's EE classes are heavily mathematical, and olympiad-level math skills absolutely carry over.

E.g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc7Gz02Znph_HU1I9STgC4Nv0aG_jdb8Z

Thanks for the playlist? And yes, Electrical Engineering is "heavily mathematical" whatever that means to you. It still doesn't mean someone good at competition math can't be bad at EE. They're two separate skills, and you are showing your lack of experience with either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

It's all such BS. Most of the poor kids going to colleges like Caltech or MIT do not attend disadvantaged high schools-they are products of the privileged poor and have access to better educational opportunities than some of our children in this thread. If Caltech cared that much about quantitative skill, they'd make their own exam for admissions that tested it or required 5s on AP Calc BC. It's virtue signalling to pretend that Caltech has any substantial poor kid population.

Academia is generally not the road to social mobility - the students applying to Caltech are not doing so because they want an upper class salary. Given that poorer students naturally want a (much) better life for themselves and their families and that the top ones understand that the life of an academic won't give them that, it makes sense that fewer would apply to and thus be accepted Caltech.

MIT, on the other hand, is a good option for those looking for a good income, and hence it has a greater percentage of pell-elligible students than the Ivy League, despite being more selective.

[Anonymous]

^ MIT is a great mix of highly academic and highly practical. Many students making amazing salaries after undergrad, while others are off to top research institutions. Me thinks Caltech is a bit jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ MIT is a great mix of highly academic and highly practical. Many students making amazing salaries after undergrad, while others are off to top research institutions. Me thinks Caltech is a bit jealous.

When your students sell out to the defense industry and to big tech, no crap they are rich, not ethical though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

I think it's obvious that the students failing those EE classes are not math olympiad winners.

Safe to say if you've never done competition math and can't tell the difference between that and Electrical engineering at a research institute...sure.

Caltech's EE classes are heavily mathematical, and olympiad-level math skills absolutely carry over.

E.g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc7Gz02Znph_HU1I9STgC4Nv0aG_jdb8Z

Thanks for the playlist? And yes, Electrical Engineering is "heavily mathematical" whatever that means to you. It still doesn't mean someone good at competition math can't be bad at EE. They're two separate skills, and you are showing your lack of experience with either.

and what's your explanation for the number of students struggling in EE55 jumping between 2021 (TR) and 2024 (TB)? Did math olympiad students suddenly become worse at learning/teaching themselves EE in that time? Or did the professor suddenly forget how to teach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

I think it's obvious that the students failing those EE classes are not math olympiad winners.

Safe to say if you've never done competition math and can't tell the difference between that and Electrical engineering at a research institute...sure.

Caltech's EE classes are heavily mathematical, and olympiad-level math skills absolutely carry over.

E.g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc7Gz02Znph_HU1I9STgC4Nv0aG_jdb8Z

Thanks for the playlist? And yes, Electrical Engineering is "heavily mathematical" whatever that means to you. It still doesn't mean someone good at competition math can't be bad at EE. They're two separate skills, and you are showing your lack of experience with either.

and what's your explanation for the number of students struggling in EE55 jumping between 2021 (TR) and 2024 (TB)? Did math olympiad students suddenly become worse at learning/teaching themselves EE in that time? Or did the professor suddenly forget how to teach?

DP butting in. The explanation is the COVID cohort. They weren't suddenly selected significantly differently from previous years, they aren't less intelligent, but they needed catch up growth. The EE teacher has never had impact, usually the students come in good, and just make it through the class despite the teaching. Where's the evidence otherwise? Agree with DP on competition math, it's not disparaging to say that those are niche skills that don't necessarily make for better EE students or math researchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also
don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

Dp, pretty clear they looked at the evidence and decided they needed standardized test scores, regardless of whether the petition was well written.

Yes, I understand the conclusion. I'm asking for the DCUM to look at the clear logical gaps and to question the intentions of bringing back these standardized scores outside of just what a college AO says (in this case, a professor).

There aren’t clear logical gaps, we simply don’t have access to all the information the school did when deciding to abandon test blind and return to test required.

Oh my god, you are dense. Neither did the professors writing the letter, basing their decision off of a couple exam scores and a few meetings where they ate at students.

Well, one of us is dense, but it isn’t me.

NP. Good comeback. (Not -- in case you were too dense to get the sarcasm).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

I think it's obvious that the students failing those EE classes are not math olympiad winners.

Safe to say if you've never done competition math and can't tell the difference between that and Electrical engineering at a research institute...sure.

Caltech's EE classes are heavily mathematical, and olympiad-level math skills absolutely carry over.

E.g https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc7Gz02Znph_HU1I9STgC4Nv0aG_jdb8Z

Thanks for the playlist? And yes, Electrical Engineering is "heavily mathematical" whatever that means to you. It still doesn't mean someone good at competition math can't be bad at EE. They're two separate skills, and you are showing your lack of experience with either.

and what's your explanation for the number of students struggling in EE55 jumping between 2021 (TR) and 2024 (TB)? Did math olympiad students suddenly become worse at learning/teaching themselves EE in that time? Or did the professor suddenly forget how to teach?

DP butting in. The explanation is the COVID cohort. They weren't suddenly selected significantly differently from previous years, they aren't less intelligent, but they needed catch up growth. The EE teacher has never had impact, usually the students come in good, and just make it through the class despite the teaching. Where's the evidence otherwise? Agree with DP on competition math, it's not disparaging to say that those are niche skills that don't necessarily make for better EE students or math researchers.

Agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

Caltech only admits under 250 students. 14 is a substantial sample.

And there were two different professor's class reports.

(Also the Putnam thing, which is a silly side note because Caltech is a tiny polytechnic school with no Putnam coach so of course they won't do well against larger schools with larger math departments and coaches and students that are friends from high school and want to go to college together).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ MIT is a great mix of highly academic and highly practical. Many students making amazing salaries after undergrad, while others are off to top research institutions. Me thinks Caltech is a bit jealous.

When your students sell out to the defense industry and to big tech, no crap they are rich, not ethical though.

Cry harder.